Whether the appellant qualifies as an intermediary under the...

Whether the appellant qualifies as an intermediary under the Place of Provision of Service Rules was examined: the tribunal found the agreement established an independent contractor relationship, the appellant provided data hosting as a principal activity and did not arrange or facilitate services between third-party recipients, so it is not an intermediary and Rule 9 inapplicable; consequently, place of provision follows the recipient location and the services are exported and outside service tax levy. Invocation of the extended period was rejected as exceptions did not apply given the appellants bona fide belief in export treatment. A limited remand was ordered to verify interest paid on prior marketing-service tax payments.